Vijender Nath Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
AO reopened the assessment based on information received from the Investigation Wing, which alleged unexplained high-volume transactions in the assessee’s savings account. Major concern was an unsecured loan of ₹8.99 crore from M/s Shiva Chain Pvt. Ltd., a company with very low de-clared income and dubious creditworthiness.
Assessee’s claimed all entries were related to inter-firm fund transfers and supported by documen-tation and that the Loan was not interest-bearing and still outstanding.
Tribunal’s Findings:
Tribunal found serious procedural lapses in the reopening process and held that the AO and ap-proving authority failed to apply their minds to the material facts and reasons. Tribunal noted that there is no independent application of mind by AO & that; he merely reproduced Investigation Wing’s input. Escaped income is not properly quantified in the reasons recorded (₹12.73 crore was mentioned without basis).Further the Approval under Section 151(1) was mechanical and lacked due diligence. Also AO ignored that return was processed under Section 143(1) & wrongly stated no return was filed. Thus Reopening was deemed invalid, and the assessment order was quashed.
Dispute Over Escaped Income Quantification
ITA No.8738/Del/201 In the form for recording reasons and seeking approval for reopening , the AO quantified the alleged escaped income as ₹12,73,65,912. Tribunal noted that there was no clear justification or calculation provided in the recorded reasons as to how this specific figure of ₹12.73 crore was derived. AO only narrated facts about the ₹8.99 crore loan and bank entries but did not show any computation or analysis leading to ₹12.73 crore. Merely writing a large figure (like ₹12.73 crore) without explaining how it was arrived at reflects a lack of application of mind. This lack of justification becomes critical, especially because Section 149(1) requires that the escaped income exceeds ₹1 lakh for reassessment after 4 years. When income is alleged to exceed ₹50 lakh or more, it triggers even stricter requirements under the law. he Tribunal cited precedent from ITO vs. Satya Narayan Parwal, , ITA No.706-708/JP/2003, order dt 28.12.2004 where it was held that the recording of the amount of escapement was obligatory on the part of the AO. Thus quantifica-tion of escaped income was necessary at the stage of recording of reasons .
